Two major reasons can be found behind this decision. One major reason is that the Snowden leaks have shaken the trust not only between the United States and Russia, China and Iran (three countries the United States had strategically selected as enemies of freedom of expression), but also between the United States and its close allies such as Germany and France. This is a consequence the United States simply cannot afford. In fact, a warning was sent out as early as the 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications, where the world found itself divided on two confronting sides, between a China-led Global South and a U.S.-led Global North in the field of Internet governance. In the wake of that conference, the United States started an aggressive defensive process by denouncing China as bad player in cyber space and the accusations backfired heavily when Snowden spoke out. It turns out that the United States now must reassure both its allies like Germany and developing countries like Brazil. Distancing itself from ICANN is a good option.

The other major reason is that the U.S. government has much confidence in the leading position of American Internet companies. Such a transition of oversight may simply mean U.S. business leaders and bureaucrats to exchange driving seats. Earlier, bureaucrats were in the driver's seat; now, they will be replaced by those business leaders. Here, we need to recognize the tricky aspects contained in the multi-stakeholder mechanism to which the U.S. government agrees to assign its oversight power. A multi-stakeholder mechanism has a diplomatic implication we need to shield ourselves from.

This might mean what we would like it to mean, as in "an inclusive mechanism embracing governments, businesses and global audiences." Yet within such a mechanism, governments play verbal games. The American line is that the market leads in that mechanism. One should remember that the term "stakeholder" is in fact business terminology. The Chinese line is no better, saying the state dominates in that mechanism. The Europeans have a better line articulated, calling it "public leadership." Whatever it is, it means all states support a multi-stakeholder mechanism, but their practices can be essentially different from each other. If the market leadership line wins out, the U.S. government's decision to back down won't make much difference. Intellectual property rights will remain over-protected and the open source software model won't prosper.

The good news is that we now have the opportunity to make changes in the better interests of the global public. The window has been opened at least a year and a half before ICANN's contract with the U.S. government expires and a new mechanism is installed. ICANN is launching a multi-stakeholder-designed process at the ongoing ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore about how the transition should be made. The time has now come for us to speak out and take action in order to avoid the Internet being dominated by any state or market.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://china.org.cn/opinion/xupeixi.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.